Trump Is Pushing the United States Toward Nuclear Anarchy
The White House wants to leave the INF Treaty. New START could be next. The death of 
these agreements would fuel a new arms race. Foreign policy, BY JON WOLFSTHAL OCTOBER 31, 2018, President Donald Trump’s tough talk about withdrawing the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has generated plenty of controversy, but not much clarity about what happens next. What’s certain is that the end of the treaty would make the United States and its allies (for whom Trump apparently cares little) less safe and would undermine the global basis for nuclear restraint and nonproliferation.
And it may get worse. America’s potential withdrawal from the INF Treaty—which bans the United States and Russia from having nuclear or conventional ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km (300 to 3,400 miles)—suggests that the 2010 New START arms reduction treaty with Russia might be next.
The untimely death of these two agreements would add fuel to a new arms race and further undermine stability and predictability between Washington and Moscow.
The last time the United States aand Russia had to navigate a world without bilateral nuclear constraints was before 1972; it was a world we were lucky to survive and one to which no sane person should want to return.
Nuclear weapons and deterrence advocates like to claim that the invention of nuclear weapons is what has kept the peace among major powers since the end of World War II. However, it was the development of predictable, binding, legal agreements and enforced global norms of behavior across security, trade, and global issues—not nuclear arms—that helped the United States to become the most prosperous and secure country in history. The rules not only made the United States safer and richer but also helped usher in an unprecedented era of global prosperity. The preservation of that order is a vital national interest and is under attack by the Trump administration.
That Trump would seek to undermine the rules that have benefited U.S. prosperity and influence is bad enough. That he would try to disrupt the system that prevents nuclear anarchy is inexcusable…………..
After assuming office, Trump largely ignored the issue of the INF Treaty and nuclear stability, even passing on an early offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin to extend the New START agreement, which caps both Russia and the United States at 1,550 strategic offensively deployed nuclear weapons and will expire on Feb. 5, 2021, unless extended by a term of up to five years. Since then, there has been no evidence that Trump or any senior member of his administration has engaged with Russia in any serious way to bring it back into compliance with the INF Treaty. While the Defense Department’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review does briefly mention the agreement, it includes no strategy to restore Russian compliance and instead uses Russia’s violations to justify considering a new generation of sea-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/31/trump-is-pushing-the-united-states-toward-nuclear-anarchy/
One veteran’s story of radiation effects of participating in nuclear bomb testing
Wigan veteran reveals radiation exposure horror, https://www.wigantoday.net/news/wigan-veteran-reveals-radiation-exposure-horror-1-9425139 ANDREW NOWELL 02 November 2018“I’ve nothing against the forces. I would have stayed in but I couldn’t because I was medically unfit. “I enjoyed every minute I was in the military. The only bad thing was Christmas Island.”
The world is in danger, as Donald Trump and John Bolton just don’t ‘get it’about nuclear treaties
WHAT TRUMP AND JOHN BOLTON DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR,  The Intercept, Jon Schwarz, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S announcement on October 20 that he intends to pull the United States out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was, if nothing else, appropriately timed. On that date exactly 56 years before, President John F. Kennedy abruptly cut short a midterm campaign trip to Illinois because, the White House said, he had a cold. In fact, Kennedy was returning to Washington to address the Cuban missile crisis — the closest humanity has ever come to obliterating itself with a nuclear war.The INF treaty was signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. It required both countries to forgo any land-based missiles, nuclear or otherwise, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
In concrete terms, the treaty was a huge success. The U.S. destroyed almost 1,000 of its own missiles, and the Soviets destroyed almost 2,000 of theirs. But arms control treaties are never about weapons and numbers alone. They can help enemy nations create virtuous circles, both between them and within themselves. Verification requires constant communication and the establishment of trust; it creates constituencies for peace inside governments and in the general public; this reduces on both sides the power of the paranoid, reactionary wing that exists in every country; this creates space for further progress; and so on. The long negotiation of the INF treaty, and the post-signing environment it helped create, was part of an extraordinary collapse of tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the 1980s. When Reagan took office, the Soviets genuinely believed that the U.S. might engage in a nuclear first strike against them. This, in turn, led to two separate moments in 1983 in which the two countries came terrifyingly close to accidental nuclear war — closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. Instead, the INF treaty was part of an era of good feelings that contributed to one of the most remarkable events of the past 100 years: the largely peaceful implosion of the Soviet Empire. Empires generally do not go quietly, and the dynamics of imperial collapse often contribute to huge conflagrations. Think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and World War I; or the British Empire and World War II. The Soviet fall was an incredible piece of good fortune for the world; if it had happened in the early 1980s, instead of a few years later, it plausibly would have been catastrophic…….. exiting the treaty will do more than just lead to an arms race in which all three countries throw themselves into building new weapons. It will also create an atmosphere in which any rational modus vivendi between the U.S. and Russia, or the U.S. and China, will be far more difficult. This is the prize for Bolton and his allies, who can imagine only one world order: One in which they give orders, and everyone else submits. Bolton has the standard self-perception of his genre of human: In his memoir, “Surrender Is Not an Option,” he explains that he cares about “hard reality,” in contrast to the “dreamy and academic” fools who support arms control. But in fact, it is Bolton who is living inside of a dream. The hard reality is that our species almost committed suicide on October 27, the most dangerous moment of the Cuban missile crisis, later dubbed Black Saturday by the Kennedy administration. Even with comparative doves in charge of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, we came close to ending human civilization, thanks to mutual incomprehension. And we avoided it, as then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later said, not by talent or wisdom, but pure luck. Then, we created a false history of what happened, one which allows terrifying fantasists like Bolton to reach, and thrive within, the highest levels of power……… Shortly after midnight, in the early morning of Black Saturday, the U.S. informed NATO that it “may find it necessary within a very short time” to attack Cuba. At noon, a U-2 flight over Cuba was shot down, killing the pilot. On all sides, war — potentially nuclear war — seemed likely, if not inevitable. But that night, Kennedy made the most important presidential decision in history: He accepted an offer from Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remove the U.S. missiles in Italy and Turkey in return for the removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. But the U.S. part of the bargain was kept secret from Americans. The administration maintained that Kennedy had forced the Soviets to give in, giving them nothing. That was, of course, more than frightening enough. But here’s the rest of the story. ON OCTOBER 27, A U.S. Navy ship participating in the blockade dropped depth charges on a Soviet submarine. It was only discovered years later that not only was the submarine armed with nuclear torpedoes, but also was out of radio contact with the Soviet government and believed that the war had begun. The captain wanted to use the torpedoes, which almost certainly would have led to the U.S using nuclear weapons in response. However, according to Soviet protocol, the torpedoes could only be launched with the approval of all three officers aboard. One of them refused. ……… what we can be sure of is that if people like Trump and Bolton had been in charge in 1962, then today there would be no discussion of the INF treaty — because there would be no treaty and no one to discuss it. It’s also certain that on our current trajectory, the day will come when the world will face a similar crisis. That time we won’t get the same roll of the dice. The hard reality of the Cuban missile crisis is that, as Blight and Lang put it, “either we put an end to nuclear weapons, or they will put an end to us.” https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/trump-inf-treaty-cuban-missile-crisis-nuclear-war/ |
|
NATO – Europeans urge USA not to quit nuclear treaty:
NATO urges Trump officials not to quit nuclear treaty: diplomats https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-nato/nato-urges-trump-officials-not-to-quit-nuclear-treaty-diplomats-idUSKCN1MZ2KZ, Robin Emmott, BRUSSELS (Reuters) 26 Oct 18, – European members of NATO urged the United States on Thursday to try to bring Russia back into compliance with a nuclear arms control treaty rather than quit it, diplomats said, seeking to avoid a split in the alliance that Moscow could exploit.
In a closed-door meeting at NATO, Pentagon, U.S. State Department and National Security Council officials briefed alliance envoys on U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which rid Europe of land-based nuclear missiles.
Diplomats present said Germany and other European allies called for a final effort on Washington’s part to convince the Kremlin to stop what the West says are violations, or possibly renegotiate it to include China.
“Allies want to see a last-ditch effort to avoid a U.S. withdrawal,” one NATO diplomat said on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the meeting, which took place two days after senior U.S. official John Bolton informed Russian President Vladimir Putin of the plans in Moscow.
“Nobody takes issue with Russia’s violation of the treaty, but a withdrawal would make it easy for Moscow to blame us for the end of this landmark agreement,” a second diplomat said.
NATO declined to comment on the details of the meeting but issued a statement saying that allies assessed “the implications of Russia’s destabilizing behavior on our security.”
“NATO allies will continue to consult on this important issue,” it added.
Earlier this week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg laid the blame on Russia for violating the treaty by developing the SSC-8, a land-based, intermediate-range Cruise missile which also has the name of Novator 9M729.
Russia denies any such violations.
NATO allies including Belgium and the Netherlands, which host U.S. nuclear weapons facilities in Europe, warned in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s highest decision-making body, of a public outcry if the United States were to try to install medium-range nuclear weapons on their territory again.
Stoltenberg said on Wednesday he did not think this would lead to reciprocal deployments of U.S. missiles in Europe as happened in the 1980s.
European allies see the INF treaty as a pillar of arms control and, while accepting that Moscow is violating it by developing new weapons, are concerned its collapse could lead to a new arms race with possibly a new generation of U.S. nuclear missiles stationed on the continent.
Diplomats said the U.S. officials did hold out the possibility that the United States may delay its formal withdrawal to after a planned meeting between Putin and Trump in Paris on Nov. 11.
The treaty foresees a six-month notification period for any withdrawal, also potentially giving Washington time to negotiate with Moscow before finally pulling out.
Reporting by Robin Emmott; Editing by Hugh Lawson
Putin warns European nations on hosting US nuclear weapons – risk to them of counter-strike
Putin says Russia will target nations who host US nuclear weapons https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-putin-missiles-us-arms-treaty-inf-john-bolton-moscow-a8600146.html
‘European countries… must understand that they are putting their own territory at risk of a possible counterstrike,’ says Russian president, Oliver Carroll, Moscow
Utah state regulators reject EnergySolutions’ request for burying depleted uranium
Utah says no to EnergySolutions accepting depleted uranium from military, but will it change course in the future? Salt Lake Tribune, By Brian Maffly 26 Oct 18 Radioactive munitions won’t be buried in Utah’s West Desert anytime soon after a decision issued Thursday by state regulators, who rejected EnergySolutions’ emergency request to accept several thousand tons of armor-piercing projectile points made of heavier-than-lead depleted uranium.
The world’s nuclear arsenals – state of play
Nuclear Weapons, Bloomberg,By Jonathan Tironem October 24, 2018 Half a century after world powers agreed to thwart the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce their own arsenals, both those projects are under strain. Under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, only five nations — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and U.S. — can possess nuclear arms, and all have promised to reduce their stockpiles eventually to zero. But Israel, India and Pakistan all developed the bomb after the treaty emerged. More recently, the goal of curbing atomic arms has been challenged by North Korea’s entryinto the nuclear club, by the U.S. withdrawal from an international deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program, and by threats by the leaders of the U.S. and Russia to augment their arsenals rather than continue to pare them down.
U.S. President Donald Trump said in October that he planned to pull the U.S. out of a landmark 1987 treaty with Russia that rolled back ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in and aimed at Western Europe. The U.S. says Russia’s recently developed 9M729 missile falls within the range covered by the pact, which NATO agrees has been violated, a charge Russia denies. Termination of the agreement could revive the nuclear arms race in Europe. It could also spur one in Asia, as it would free the U.S. to deploy mid-range nuclear weapons to counter China’s deployment of such arms, which is not bound by the 1987 treaty. Trump has said that in general the U.S. “must greatly strengthenand expand its nuclear capability.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has boasted of his country’s work on next-generation nuclear-weapons systems. Under Trump, the U.S. has already withdrawn from a 2015 accord setting limits on Iran’s nuclear program and has begun re-imposing sanctions that were lifted under the deal. Iran’s government has said it would continue to abide by the pact. The risk, though, is that as U.S. sanctions bite, hardliners in Iran will insist on re-accelerating the nuclear program. Before the deal, Iran possessed enough enriched uranium for multiple bombs and was thought to be capable of refining it to the level needed for weapons in just a few months. North Korea declared its nuclear force “complete” in late 2017. Dictator Kim Jong Un said this year that he’s open to giving up his nuclear weapons. It’s not clear what his conditions are. And many analysts are skeptical he’d ever relinquish the arms, for fear of losing his means of deterring a military intervention meant to topple him.
Dictator Kim Jong Un said this year that he’s open to giving up his nuclear weapons. It’s not clear what his conditions are. And many analysts are skeptical he’d ever relinquish the arms, for fear of losing his means of deterring a military intervention meant to topple him……… https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/nuclear-weapons
Nuclear weapons building – building up to a budget disaster
|
THE TICKING NUCLEAR BUDGET TIME BOMB, WAR ON THE ROCKS, KINGSTON REIF AND MACKENZIE EAGLEN OCTOBER 25, 2018
In a little-noticed comment before his controversial July summit meeting with Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump expressed a desire to talk to his Russian counterpart about their countries’ extensive nuclear modernization plans. Trump characterized his own government’s plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade the aging nuclear arsenal as “a very, very bad policy.” He seemed to express some hope that the two countries, which together possess over 90 percent of the planet’s nuclear warheads, could chart a different path and avert a new arms race. Still, it’s not clear Trump is actually interested in a different path. He said on Monday, in the context of his decision to withdraw the United States from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, that “We have far more money than anybody else by far. We’ll build [the U.S. nuclear arsenal] up until” other nuclear-armed states such as Russia and China “come to their senses.” Since the dawn of the nuclear age, there has been heated debate about the appropriate role and number of nuclear weapons in U.S. policy. What has largely been above debate, however, has been the need for a strong and credible arsenal so long as nuclear weapons exist — a top policy and budgetary priority of recent administrations of both parties. But a reckoning is coming, the result of a massive disconnect between budgetary expectations and fiscal reality. Despite claims that nuclear weapons “don’t actually cost that much,” the simple fact is that unless the administration and its successors find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, spending to maintain the current arsenal — to say nothing of a buildup — will pose a significant affordability problem. Trying to recapitalize nearly the entire arsenal at roughly the same time means less money is likely to be spent on each individual modernization program, thereby increasing the time and cost required to complete each one. The absence of reasonable planning will also result in more suboptimal choices when hard decisions become inevitable. The current path is an irrational and costly recipe for sucking funding from other defense programs and/or buying fewer new nuclear delivery systems and reducing the size of the arsenal. The longer military and political leaders continue to deny this reality, the worse off America’s nuclear deterrent and armed forces will be. The Third Wave of Nuclear Modernization Spending………. Sustaining the arsenal will require a third wave of major upgrades. The Obama administration committed to a major overhaul of the arsenal in 2010, part of its effort to win Republican support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last fall that the plans Trump inherited from his predecessor to maintain and upgrade the arsenal over the next 30 years would cost $1.2 trillion in today’s dollars. That CBO projection includes about $400 billion in modernization spending that falls largely in the mid-2020s to early 2030s, as well as relatively stable, though steadily increasing, operations and sustainment costs over the entire 30-year period. ……The CBO’s projection of $400 billion in nuclear modernization spending might be a best-case scenario. Because the Pentagon has not built intercontinental ballistic missiles or ballistic missile submarines in a long time, the department’s independent Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office has acknowledged that the confidence levels for nuclear upgrade cost estimates are relatively low. This means that, even if the programs are managed perfectly, they could end up costing a lot more than the estimates project. The land- and sea-based missile programs, as well as the plan to build over 100 B-21 long-range bombers, could, by our count, each cost as much as $150 billion after including inflation, easily putting them among the top ten most expensive Pentagon acquisition programs. On top of all of this, the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review proposes expanding U.S. nuclear capabilities by calling for new warheads and new missiles to counter Russia, more bomb production infrastructure, and a greater emphasis on nuclear command and control. These proposals would likely add additional tens of billions to the $1.2 trillion price tag. So too could a U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty and failure to extend New START, which is slated to expire in 2021. In particular, the verifiable New START caps on Russian deployed nuclear forces aid U.S. military planning by reducing the need to make worst-case assessments that could prompt additional costly nuclear force investments. Third Wave of Nuclear Modernization: Unique Challenges.…….. Most importantly, the overall federal fiscal outlook is far direr. The most recent CBO estimates suggest that the United States will add somewhere between $12 to $13 trillion in new debt from spending over the next decade. ……. The growth of mandatory spending in all categories, coupled with the recent tax cuts, will balloon the national debt to the highest level relative to GDP in the nation’s history. This will increase pressure to slash discretionary expenditures, including defense. While Congress approved a major increase to defense spending in fiscal year 2018, the Budget Control Act caps return in 2020 and 2021. Without amendment, these could result in a $171 billion national defense spending decline, or 13 percent of the total planned for those two years. Absent a “grand bargain” that eluded lawmakers in 2011 and led to the Budget Control Act’s spending caps, sustaining real growth in the defense budget will be almost impossible. This will make it difficult to afford both conventional and nuclear modernization in tandem. Additionally, bipartisan political support for increasing nuclear weapons spending is fragile and far from assured in the future. ……… Disarmament by Default Numerous Pentagon officials and outside experts have cautioned that the current nuclear upgrade plan cannot be sustained without significant and sustained increases to defense spending — which are unlikely to be forthcoming — or cuts to other military priorities………. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. Whether one believes America’s nuclear weapons spending plans are good or bad policy, pursuing them poses a massive fiscal challenge that America’s military and political leaders can no longer afford to ignore.https://warontherocks.com/2018/10/the-ticking-nuclear-budget-time-bomb/ |
|
“Peace comes through strength.” – says Vice President Pence about nuclear weapons in space
Vice President Pence Didn’t Rule Out the Possibility of Nuclear Weapons in Space http://fortune.com/2018/10/23/pence-nuclear-weapons-space/, By RENAE REINTS October 23, 2018
Vice President Mike Pence chose not rule out the possibility of nuclear weapons in space, telling The Washington Post on Tuesday that “peace comes through strength.”
“What we need to do is make sure that we provide for the common defense of the people of the United States of America, and that’s the president’s determination here,” Pence said, when asked if nuclear weapons should be banned from outer space. “What we want to do is continue to advance the principle that peace comes through strength.”
Weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear weapons, are currently banned from orbit through the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by both Russia and the United States during the Cold War. The treaty states that not only are nuclear weapons banned from outer space, but the moon and other celestial bodies are to be used for peaceful purposes only: this means no military bases, practices, or weapons testing.
President Donald Trump has already threatened to throw out one arms control treaty, however.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed with Russia in 1987, required the destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with certain ranges. Amid concerns that Russia may be developing a medium-range ballistic missile, Trump said Saturday that the United States will end the INF Treaty.
Pence made his comments Tuesday at the “Transformers: Space” policy summit, hosted by the Post. He also said the Trump administration hopes to establish Space Force, a sixth branch of the U.S. military focused on outer space, as soon as 2020.
It’s imperative for the world to resist the escalation of nuclear weapons
Nuclear escalation must be resisted https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/nuclear-escalation-must-be-resisted
We understood that in the 1980s and we mobilised against it. The INF treaty was in large part a result of massive international protest against nuclear escalation in the 1980s, including CND protests against cruise missiles which mobilised hundreds of thousands of people. The iconic Greenham peace camp was part of that wave of protest. We stand resolutely against this return to the nuclear escalation of the cold war and we call on all peoples once again to reject these moves.
Kate Hudson
General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
USA withdrawal from nuclear weapons treaties -risks creating “another Cuban Missile Crisis”
CIS:E.1512-2004
PRESIDENT Trump risks creating “another Cuban Missile Crisis” if he withdraws the US from key nuclear weapons treaties, leading Russian parliamentarian Alexei Pushkov has warned.
He said: “The danger is that the United States is pushing the world to another Cuban Missile Crisis. “Back then we were lucky to avoid an exchange of nuclear strikes. “Only God knows what all this may end up in now.”
Trump has announced the US will pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which was established between the US and the Soviet Union in 1987.
The treaty prohibits the development of nuclear missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,000 kilometres.
The US claims Russia is breaching the agreement by continuing to work on mid-range ballistic missiles which could carry nuclear warheads.
There is particular focus on the 9M729 intermediate missile system, which Russia insists does not violate the INF treaty……..
Despite the US’s rhetoric, the Trump administration is yet to start the formal withdrawal process from the INF treaty.
In 2002, President George W Bush withdrew the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, thus allowing the country to develop a defensive missile shield.
John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor and an advocate of withdrawing from the INF treaty, was involved in these negotiations. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1035602/World-war-3-President-Donald-Trump-nuclear-weapon-crisis-Russia-MP-Vladimir-Putin
Britain’s Ministry of Defence foresees nuclear attacks on Earth, launched from space
Space stations could launch NUCLEAR attacks on Earth in 30 years – shock MoD report
SPACE stations could launch nuclear attacks on Earth in 30 years, the Ministry of Defence has warned in a shock report on the growing threat of a nuclear space race. The threat of a nuclear space race comes as countries look to expand their arsenal of weapons outside the earths atmosphere.
A report called the ‘Future Starts Today’ outlines the “critical point” the world has reached in relation to warfare.
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson acknowledged the “dangerous” state of the world.
As the advancement of technology increases the prospect of military space bases has come to fruition with nuclear warheads circling earth.
These weapons would have “global reach” and be unseen by those on Earth.
The destructive power of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapon – detonated in the air rather than on the ground – will be developed to knock out whole cities and even countries.
Electromagnetic pulses have the ability to shut down anything running on electrical power therefore, lights, communications, heating systems would all stop working in an instant.https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1034575/space-stations-nuclear-attack-earth-ministry-of-defence-report
USA was close to using nuclear weapons in the Vietnam war
HOW CLOSE DID THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY GET TO USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN VIETNAM IN 1968? WAR ON THE ROCKS
OCTOBER 24, 2018.”…….The publication of Michael Beschloss’ new book, Presidents of War, shined light on declassified documents describing the efforts that President Lyndon Johnson’s senior military officers undertook without presidential authorization in early 1968 to prepare for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam.How close did the United States actually get to deploying nuclear weapons in Vietnam in 1968? Who initiated this plan, codenamed “Fracture Jaw,” and when did the president become aware of it? What can today’s leaders learn from this incident, and what implications does this episode have for command and control of nuclear weapons during wartime and the so-called “nuclear taboo” that purportedly dissuades their use?
Drawing on declassified “eyes only” materials housed at the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, I seek to situate the revelations in Beschloss’ book in the broader historical context to provide a more detailed account of the military’s planning for Fracture Jaw and just how far Pentagon and White House officials allowed these preparations to progress without the president’s full knowledge………….
The “Nuclear Taboo” and Command and Control Nuclear Weapons During Wartime
From the perspective of the so-called “nuclear taboo,” which dissuades the use of nuclear weapons because of their devastating destructive potential, the Fracture Jaw episode is something of a success story. Johnson consistently made clear to his advisors that he did not want to be put in a position where he would be asked for authority to launch tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Although he did not explicitly rule out the use of these weapons categorically, Johnson’s fury in discovering on Feb. 10 that planning had persisted in spite of his earlier directive only reinforces the notion that the president was committed to avoiding their use.
From the vantage point of command and control of the nuclear arsenal, however, this episode is more harrowing. Although the president’s regional and theater commanders expeditiously complied with the commander-in-chief’s directive to shut down Fracture Jaw, their planning had progressed with seemingly little presidential understanding of just how far along Pacific Command had advanced in preparing its tactical nuclear arsenal for possible use……….
In his role as commander-in-chief, the president retains ultimate (and effectively unchecked) authority over whether to deploy nuclear weapons, a choice Johnson described as “one of the most awesome and grave decisions any president could be called upon to make.” In this instance, Johnson did not hesitate to exercise this authority, but only after media speculation made him aware of how far preparations for their use in Vietnam had actually progressed. That the president and the White House staff was insufficiently aware of how far along this contingency planning had progressed rightfully raises important questions about the integrity of the country’s nuclear command and control infrastructure, particularly as the United States contemplates a greater reliance on tactical nuclear weapons in its deterrence posture. And it gives rise to speculation, however remote, about the decision Johnson would have had to confront in weighing a full-fledged nuclear option in Vietnam should Fracture Jaw have come to fruition. In his role as commander-in-chief, the president retains ultimate (and effectively unchecked) authority over whether to deploy nuclear weapons, a choice Johnson described as “one of the most awesome and grave decisions any president could be called upon to make.” In this instance, Johnson did not hesitate to exercise this authority, but only after media speculation made him aware of how far preparations for their use in Vietnam had actually progressed. That the president and the White House staff was insufficiently aware of how far along this contingency planning had progressed rightfully raises important questions about the integrity of the country’s nuclear command and control infrastructure, particularly as the United States contemplates a greater reliance on tactical nuclear weapons in its deterrence posture. And it gives rise to speculation, however remote, about the decision Johnson would have had to confront in weighing a full-fledged nuclear option in Vietnam should Fracture Jaw have come to fruition. ……
Catholic Church urges countries to sign and ratify the UN Nuclear Weapons Ban
|
Holy See urges ratification of Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2018-10/holy-see-united-nations-auza-prohibition-nuclear-weapons.htmlSpeaking on behalf of Archbishop Bernadito Auza, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the UN in New York, Second Counsellor, Father David Charters addressed a UN General Assembly discussion on nuclear disarmament on October 22. By Robin Gomes
The Holy See has once more expressed grave concern over the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of the use of nuclear weapons , and called on all governments of states who adopted the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to sign and ratify it. Speaking on behalf of Archbishop Bernadito Auza, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the UN in New York, Second Counsellor, Father David Charters made the call in an address on Monday at a UN General Assembly discussion on nuclear disarmament. The TPNW, or the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty, that prohibits the use, threat of use, development, testing, production, manufacturing and possession of nuclear weapons, will enter into force when 50 states have signed and ratified it. Fr. Charters warned that a nuclear war or even a limited use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, and would kill untold numbers of people and cause tremendous environmental damage and famine. Holy See vs nuclear weaponsThe Holy See official pointed out that the continued existence of over 14,000 nuclear weaponsheld by a handful of countries is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. Fr. Charters said that the Catholic Church has been opposing nuclear weapons since 1943. St. John XXIII called for its ban in his encyclical “Peace on Earth” and the later popes have consistently called for the “abolition of these evil instruments of warfare that create both a false sense of security and foster distrust and disharmony”. Wasted resourcesFr. Charters pointed out that the Second Vatican Council condemned nuclear arms race as “an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, and one that injures the poor to an intolerable degree.” Fr. Charters noted that maintenance of nuclear weapons continues to siphon off immense resources that could be devoted, among other things, to the implementation and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, especially the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. The Holy See the concern of Pope Francis according to whom “nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction cannot be the basis for an ethics of fraternity and peaceful coexistence.” |
|
Trump threatens to build up U.S. nuclear arsenal against China, Russia
WASHINGTON (Reuters) OCTOBER 23, 2018, – President Donald Trump warned on Monday that the United States intended to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons to pressure Russia and China. Speaking to reporters, Trump repeated his contention that Russia was not abiding by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which he has threatened to abandon.
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (129)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 